Posted on 01/15/2007 8:04:12 AM PST by shrinkermd
The Sixties generation thought everything should be free. But only a few decades later the hippies were selling water at rock festivals for $5 a bottle. But for me the price of “free love” was even higher.
I sacrificed what should have been the best years of my life for the black lie of free love. All the sex I ever had — and I had more than my fair share — far from bringing me the lasting relationship I sought, only made marriage a more distant prospect...
And I am not alone. Count me among the dissatisfied daughters of the sexual revolution, a new counterculture of women who are realising that casual sex is a con and are choosing to remain chaste instead.
I am 37, and like millions of other girls, was born into a world which encouraged young women to explore their sexuality. It was almost presented to us as a feminist act. In the 1960s the future Cosmopolitan editor Helen Gurley Brown famously asked: Can a woman have sex like a man? Yes, she answered because “like a man, [a woman] is a sexual creature”. Her insight launched a million “100 new sex tricks” features in women’s magazines. And then that sex-loving feminist icon Germaine Greer enthused that “groupies are important because they demystify sex; they accept it as physical, and they aren’t possessive about their conquests”.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Amen!
Where in my comments to Hunter112 did I make a distinction in the nature and purpose of sex, let alone the nature of mortal sins?
I am not going to discuss this with you.
"Even here there has always been familial input as to the acceptability of the marriage partner: religion, econimic strata, potentiality, class, culture."
I agree. After all, you marry the family, not the person.
Your original point, I believe, was that the idea of romantic love being an integral part of marriage was a modern invention. I was merely disagreeing with that assertion. Romantic love may play a larger part in marriage in our modern world but it's not a modern invention by any means.
Miss Manners would probably recognize that it's a general remark, and NOT directed at any particular person. If it were, then she would call Dr. Laura on it.
Not that Dr. Laura hasn't said such things before.
But I like her. She tells it like it is, and drives it home. About time, instead of all the mealy-mouthed liberal nice-nice that passes for discussion and discernment now.
True, but this is an unusual case. 95% (?) of the time the pill is used for the purpose of birth control.
I chose not to mention medicinal uses of the pill because I didn't want to complicate the issue.
Even in your harrowing case, complete abstention may have been morally preferable, however difficult. I'm not sure.
"That could be said of other mammals that have a "heat" season, during the time of maximum fertility. And such mammals seem to be able to reproduce without the need for mutual pleasure."
"I don't have much knowledge in that area, but it's pretty much irrelevant to the argument. We're human beings, not dogs."
I assure you, it's the same. Dogs and other mammals enjoy it, or else, as you suggested earlier, they would not do it and propagate the species! It may only be at the cycle times (for females), but regardless, they enjoy it.
She might have had better experiences if she'd actually LIKED her partners. It certainly doesn't sound like she did.
Is that really a person's name? It sounds like a venereal disease!
No, Dr. Laura didn't call any "particular" woman a WHORE for living with a man outside of marriage. She only called the millions of American women who currently live with men outside of marriage WHORES.
Yup, I see the difference. /s
Name-calling, by Dr. Laura or anyone, does nothing to address this important issue.
No, she should not forgo sex. If she's able, she should feel free to make love with her husband.
Scripture: Song (or Canticle) of Solomon, entire.
Secular: (assuming you're talking about marital sex) there's still that good pleasure-bonding thing with her husband.
"Pelosi attacking Condi Rice over not having a husband or children shows that feminism was a lie."
It wasn't Pelosi. Why do you think it was?
Sorry; that was for Hunter112. I just included you because it looked like you were already in on the dialog (trialog?) with him.
Cordially,
Mrs. Don-o
Which sums it up rather completely.
Google 'Dick Trickle' and prepare to be pleasantly surprised, Mr. Trickle (of NASCAR fame) is a gentleman and a very fast driver. ;)
The phrasing of the posts on this sub-topic certainly reflect the reality that virginity has never been considered particularly important for men. The stress is on the female remaining virgin; there isn't even a discussion of the idea that a virgin female might want a male partner to match.
Thanks for your well thought out answers. I don't agree with them but I see that you are logically consistent which many advocates of no or "natural" BC are not.
The "woman who cannot have more children" is a result of having had 8 c-sections, a miscarriage requiring surgery, a perforated uterus (followed by three c-sections) and one case of placenta previa. An extreme case, but there are others. Many you can't just look at and see that there's a physical reason there. Many in which any chance at all of pregnancy is absolutely unacceptable.
I probably look at the "woman's body as a perfect cycle of fertile and infertile times" thing screwy because that has never, ever, not one cycle, been true for me. Women who have regular cycles are lucky. I looked at NFP and I'll spare you the details of how after six months of studying my body I concluded it'll be a really awesome tool for getting pregnant but for me, that's about it. Suffice it to say after one 40 day cycle, there were 6 days I could identify as being probably, most likely, infertile.
I have a brother whose body just naturally did not produce growth hormone. That's the way he was born. His doctors put him on human growth hormone until he reached a normal height. That was interfering with the natural working of his body, using technology to play God. If that's ok, I guess I don't really see a difference between that and using artificial means to regulate other systems.
So this is yet ANOTHER area in which Dr. Laura gives the "do as I say, not as I do" advice? There sure are enough of them.
Well, there you go; Good call. Women aren't wired to think and feel this way, she just hasn't visited the right shrink yet. Perhaps in the yellow pages under "Rationalization Assistance", hmmm?
I particularly like your very first statement. Did you really think about that one before you wrote it or did you just expect to try to make sense of it later? Good luck with that, btw.
That actually is historical revisionism. The marriage rate in colonial times was under 50%. Alot of pitchfork weddings took place too, alot of people just shacked up and considered themselves married, without bothering with the church thing. They were monogomous, but not "married" per se. Historians have gone through the documents from the 1600's and 1700's in Colonial New England and were actually shocked to discover how low the church going and marriage rates were at the time.
Mostly wealthy people married in the church. Poor people have a custom of going to a bar, and literally jumping over a broom, and they were "married". It was called jumping the broom. That being said, marriage is a lovely institution that I am fond of and an active participant in, but the romaticized notion of the past where "everybody" got married, were religious, and acted stern and proper is not actually accurate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.